IWSMG_SOL.278.15.00009_Amendment_No._01.pdf

May 14, 2015

Subject: RFP No. SOL-278-15-000009 USAID/Jordan Improved Water Sector Management & Governance Activity (IWSMG)

The purpose of this Amendment No. 1 to RFP No. SOL-278-15-000009 is to disseminate responses to questions received from prospective offerors and to amend the RFP as follows:

1. COVER PAGE

On the cover page of the RFP No. SOL-278-15-000009, DELETE, the deadline for receipt of proposal , “June 3, 2015 at 4:30 pm Jordan time” and REPLACE with “ June 5, 2015 at 5:00 pm Eastern Daylight Time”.

2. In Section B.8 - FIXED FEE SCHEDULE - FAR 52.216-8 (JUN 2011)

Paragraph (a) is corrected to read as follows: “The Government shall pay the Contractor for performing this contract the fixed fee specified in the Schedule.”

3. In Section F.4 – AUTHORIZED WORK WEEK IS REVISED AS FOLLOWS:

“F.4 AUTHORIZED WORK WEEK

The Contractor is authorized up to a 5 day workweek for long-term staff and local short term advisors in the field, and 6 day workweek for international short-term advisors in the field with no premium pay. This contract does not allow work in excess of 5 days per week for local staff and local short term advisors without prior written approval by

USAID’s Contracting Office and no overtime is authorized.”

RFP No. SOL-278-15-000009 USAID/Jordan Improved Water Sector Management & Governance Activity (IWSMG) - Amendment No. 1

2 | P a g e

4. In Section J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER

ATTACHMENTS

The following additional annexes are attached to Amendment No. 1:

Annex N Assessment of Multi-Sector Regulatory Assessment Report

(Final)

Annex O Assessment Report on the Future of Water Utilities/Water

Companies (Draft)

Annex P Institutional Assessment of the Jordan Valley Authority (Draft)

Annex Q Socio-Economic Analysis Report Impact Assessment of GW

Wells (Final)

Annex R 2015 – 2019 Water Authority of Jordan Strategic Plan (in

Arabic only)

Annex S 2013-04-10 JVA IA Legal Assessment (Draft)

Annex T Intentionally Left Blank

Annex U Miyahuna Asset Management Plan & Process Report (Final)

Annex V Detailed Assessment Regulatory Reporting (Draft)

Annex W Governance and Management of Retail Water Utilities (Final)”

5. In Section L.8.6 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Paragraph L.8.6.3(b)(2) is revised as follows: “To supplement the narrative summary in

(1) provide a list of the recent three (3) contracts for which you submitted subcontract reports to eSRS (FAR 52.219-9(d)(10) and a copy of any similarly recent subcontracting reports if they were not submitted to eSRS.”

3 | P a g e

In Section L.8 (3) - INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE COST

PROPOSAL

In Part 3 – Budget Narrative, under the section entitled, “Consultants”, DELETE:

“Separate Short Term Technical Consultants (STTA) cost into two categories: those which are employees of the Offeror (In-House STTA), and those that are contracted.”

6. In ANNEX L:

The following sentence has been ADDED as part of Annex L:

“Additional documents discussed in this Annex have been made available on the ISSP website: “http://isspjordan.org/resources/index/ and as additional Annexes to the RFP

Amendment No. 1.”

Except as provided here in, all other terms and conditions of the document referenced above remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

4 | P a g e

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

The following are the responses to the questions and request for clarifications received:

QUESTION 1: Would USAID consider a one week extension for submission of the proposal to allow

Offerors a little more time to develop a thorough response to the PWS?

RESPONSE: The proposal deadline has been amended from June 3, 2015 to June 5, 2015 at 5:00 pm Eastern Daylight Time.

QUESTION 2: Given the importance and significant effort required to create an innovative Scope and

Strategy to address Jordan’s water crisis, and to increase competition allowing for new implementing partners to participate in a more significant way, will USAID kindly consider extending the proposal deadline to June 10 or slightly beyond

RESPONSE: See Response to Question 1 above.

QUESTION 3: SOL Section Cover Letter, paragraph 1, page 1: Deadline for submission of proposals:

Due to the size and nature of the project, which requires considerable input from a number of disciplines, we kindly request an extension of at least 3 weeks to enable us to develop a suitably detailed proposal.

RESPONSE: See Response to Question 1 above.

QUESTION 4: Can USAID please provide an anticipated start date of the contract?

RESPONSE: The Activity will commence immediately upon award. The period of conducting the procurement process is unknown. It is anticipated that the start date would occur no earlier than September 2015.

QUESTION 5: Relevant RFP Language: “estimated cost in the range of $30,000,000 and $35,000,000”

Question: Please confirm that bidders should not bid below $30M, the minimum amount stated in the range.

RESPONSE: Offerors are encouraged to propose a technical approach that will maximize results that they believe are realistic and reasonable for work described in the proposal. An award will be made to the most effective approach for achieving the

5 | P a g e expected results.

QUESTION 6: Can USAID please provide a breakdown of the total contract range of $30 million to

$35 million, between the base period and supplemental activities to ensure parity across offerors?

RESPONSE: Indicating a dollar amount eliminates cost competition and therefore will not be provided. The Supplemental Activities, however, are discrete activities and we recommend that limited resources be allocated for the utility systems improvement. The determination of the amount budgeted for supplemental activities is to be determined by the Offeror.

QUESTION 7: USAID has asked offerors to develop a performance work statement, technical approach, and budget that incorporates a series of ‘Supplemental Activities’, outlined in

Attachment 9 (on page 10 of that attachment, section B). There is, however, no suggested weight, LOE, or budget allotment given in the RFP to implement these supplemental activities. Would USAID consider providing a plug figure to allocate for the implementation of supplemental activities so that offerors can understand the priority to give these supplemental activities versus the base program activities?

RESPONSE: See Response to Question 6.

QUESTION 8: Q(i)Would USAID provide a plug figure for the Manage System and Technical Tools and Upgrades line item to ensure parity across offerors’ budgets (Page 119, Section

L.8)?

Q(ii) What proportion of the funds does USAID envision as part of the base period versus supplemental activities?

RESPONSE: A(i) The amount allocated for this line item is based on the offeror’s discretion, in alignment with its technical approach.

A(ii) See Question 6.

QUESTION 9: Would USAID kindly make available all of the reports listed in Annex L to ensure transparent and fair competition amongst Offerors. For example, studies and papers done by ISSP, such as the Policy white papers on wastewater management and bulk

6 | P a g e water supply, MWI restructuring and capacity building plan, WAJ strategic plan and

JVA institutional assessment, are not currently available on either the DEC or ISSP’s website.

RESPONSE: Additional documents have been made available on the ISSP website:

http://isspjordan.org/resources/index/.

In addition, the following documents are attached to this Amendment:

Annex N Assessment of Multi-Sector Regulatory Assessment Report ( Final)

Annex O Assessment Report on the Future of Water Utilities/Water

Companies (Draft)

Annex P Institutional Assessment of the Jordan Valley Authority (Draft)

Annex Q Socio-Economic Analysis Report Impact Assessment of GW Wells –

(Final)

Annex R 2015 – 2019 Water Authority of Jordan Strategic Plan (in Arabic only)

Annex S 2013-04-10 JVA IA Legal Assessment (Draft)

Annex T Intentionally Left Blank

Annex U Miyahuna Asset Management Plan & Process Report (Final)

Annex V Detailed Assessment Regulatory Reporting (Draft)

Annex W Governance and Management of Retail Water Utilities (Final)

QUESTION 10:

SOL Section Attachment 9, paragraph Section 2C, page 2: The link provided in paragraph 4 (MCC Jordan Monitoring and Evaluation Plan) does not work. Can you please provide an alternative link to the information referenced?

RESPONSE: Refer to the alternative link below:

http://www.mca-jordan.gov.jo/page/Default.aspx?page=Monitoring

7 | P a g e

QUESTION 11: SOL Section Attachment 9, paragraph Section 2D, page 3: Is it possible to provide additional details relating to the efforts of other Donors? This will assist in ensuring effort is not duplicated.

RESPONSE: Annex M provides additional information regarding potential complementarity with other programs.

QUESTION 12: Can you tell me if there is an incumbent contractor currently performing work for this requirement? If so, could you please provide their company name and contract number?

RESPONSE: Although there is no direct predecessor program to this activity, the Institutional

Support & Strengthening Program (ISSP), which focused on government reform, was implemented by International Resources Group (IRG).

QUESTION 13: Can USAID please provide the order of precedence for the Attachments and Annexes?

In particular, the order of precedence for Attachment 9, Statement of Objectives, Annex

D, Results Framework, Annex F, Logframe and Annex G, Menu of Component

Activities

RESPONSE: Each referenced documents in the RFP provides information that will inform the

Offeror in developing its proposal as set forth in the instructions in Section L.

There is no order of precedence.

QUESTION 14: Annex B and Attachment 9, General Inquiry. The Government of Jordan’s “Water for Life” Water Strategy 2008-2022 (Annex B) has been included in the RFP documents. Are offerors at liberty to explore water sector reforms or other associated measures that are not covered by this Strategy and its constituent goals, or that may even be at variance with this Strategy in some instances? Similarly, to what extent must any strategies and interventions that an offeror might propose be in strict compliance with the National Water Master Plan?

RESPONSE: Offerors are expected to develop their own approach. Offerors, however, should keep in mind that it is recommended that their approach should align with the

Government of Jordan priorities.

QUESTION 15: SOL Section: Attachment 9 (SOO), Section 6.A - Page Number: 7

8 | P a g e

Relevant RFP Language: “The Minister of MWI requested that the focus and significant portion of the effort of the utility work be with Zarqa (IR1.1; Component 1) complementing the MCC compact infrastructure improvements. And then, the approach recommended and best practices developed in Zarqa, should be supported and rolled out to other utilities (IR1.1; Component 2)…The Minister of MWI also requested that a full-time advisor be placed in Yarmouk to support the effort to roll out management improvements at the utility.”

Question: The SOO states that the Minister of MWI requested that the focus of the effort of the utility work be with Zarqa, and then the approaches and best practices from Zarqa be rolled out to other utilities. As such, can you confirm that the full-time advisor to Yarmouk should correspond to when the utility work shifts from Zarqa to the other utilities?

RESPONSE: The Offerors should determine when the full-time advisor should be hired at

Yarmouk based on their approach; it is not required to wait for the rollout of activities from Zarqa to Yarmouk.

QUESTION 16: Attachment 9, General Inquiry. Given that the plight of water in Jordan is adversely affected by the regional situation and particularly the unrest and conflict in Syria, is

USAID Jordan able to offer any guidance regarding the extent to which this project should focus on the water implications of the Zaatari camp in northern Jordan, which houses more than 120,000 Syrian refugees, making it the second largest refugee camp in the world?

RESPONSE: This activity is focused on supporting Jordanian utilities. The utilities provide water to the entrance of the refugee camp; it is the United Nations that manages the water inside the refugee camps including any wells inside the camps. USAID does not have the mandate to work directly in the refugee camps and therefore the activity is not expected to work directly with these camps.

QUESTION 17: Will USAID please provide the specifications (including the original developer) of the X7 Financial and Procurement System (referenced in Annex G, page 5, B.

Supplemental Activities for Component 1) for offerors to provide to local vendors?

RESPONSE: Annex G provides a menu of potential activities that an offeror may consider when developing its technical approach. The offeror must develop its own

9 | P a g e approach.

With regard to the X7 Financial and Procurement System, Offerors are not expected to be able to produce a complete detailed design as part of this solicitation.

QUESTION18: Would USAID allow the Offeror to alter the sub-results listed in the Activity Results

Framework (Annex D) and/or Logframe (Annex F) to better match the Offeror’s technical approach?

RESPONSE: Annex D is the current results framework, including the sub-results, for the WRE

Office and cannot be altered. Annex F contains the logical framework and may be adjusted as appropriate to reflect the Offeror’s technical approach.

QUESTION 19: SOL Section: Attachment 9 (SOO), Section 5 - Page Number: 4

Relevant RFP Language: “The indicators and targets must support the USAID/Jordan water sector results framework, utilizing the indicators provided in Annex F.”

SOL Section: Attachment 10 (PTMP Template) - Page Number: 1

Relevant RFP Language: “However, as this solicitation is based on a Statement of

Objectives, the Offerors may determine that some or many of the indicators are not relevant to their measurement of success and/or their approach. Therefore, the Offerors are free to eliminate indicators that are not relevant for the success of the chosen approach. Offerors are also free to add quantitative indicators and/or milestones to this

PMTP that they believe are important for their success.”

Question: Attachment 9, Section 5 requires Offerors to use the indicators in Annex F.

However, Attachment 10 allows Offerors to eliminate indicators provided in Annex F and propose additional indicators. Are we correct that Offerors are allowed to eliminate indicators provided in Annex F and add new indicators that best measure our proposed approach?

RESPONSE: See Response to Question 18.

10 | P a g e

QUESTION 20: Annex F, General Inquiry. Please provide contextual guidance for how offerors should take cognizance of Annex F, USAID Water Sector Logical Framework. Will an awardee be allowed (or encouraged) to update, revise, or amend this logical framework in the pursuit of the works under the new IWSMG contract?

RESPONSE: See Answer to Question 18.

QUESTION 21: SOL Section: Attachment 9 (SOO), Section 6.A: Component 1 - Page Number: 6-8

SOL Section: Annex F: USAID Water Sector Logical Framework - Page Number: 1-2

Question (a): The descriptive narrative about the Base Program in the SOO (Attachment

9) addresses Components as a whole, without distinguishing among the constituent Sub-

IRs. For Sub-IR 1.1, all three indicators in the Logical Framework (Annex F) refer to non-revenue water (NRW)/loss reduction only. What activities beyond NRW interventions should Offerors include in Sub-IR 1.1?

RESPONSE: The Offeror must develop its own approach. A menu of activities set forth in

Attachment G provides a comprehensive list of potential options that could be considered.

QUESTION 22: Question (b): Sub-IR 1.2 indicators in the Logical Framework (Annex F) address strengthening best-practice driven systems for water utilities and Operations and

Maintenance improvements, both of which address NRW. Are we correct that Offerors should address NRW under both Sub-IR 1.1 and Sub-IR 1.2?

RESPONSE: Yes, an Offeror may address NRW under both Sub-IR 1.1 and Sub-IR 1.2.

QUESTION 23: SOL Section: L.8.2 – Page Number: 110

Relevant RFP Language: “the Performance Target Monitoring Plan and Summary

AMEP may be limited to the Base Program”

SOL Section: L.8.2.a.2 - Page Number: 111

Relevant RFP Language: “Describe the proposed performance targets for each of the

Activity Components and Supplemental Activities, as set forth in the Performance

11 | P a g e

Target Monitoring Plan”

Question: Because Offerors are only required to develop targets for the Base Program

(i.e., not the Supplemental Activities) in the Performance Target Monitoring Plan, are we correct that we need to scribe those targets for the Base Program only (i.e., not the

Supplemental Activities) in the Technical Rationale?

RESPONSE: Yes, only the performance targets for the Base Program (and not the Supplemental

Activities) must be articulated in the Technical Rationale section. The Technical

Rationale section must, however, include the Offeror’s proposed technical approach for both the Base Program and the Supplemental Activities.

QUESTION 24: SOL Section Attachment 10, paragraph 1, page 1: The document Attachment 10, Performance Target Monitoring Plan Template, includes baseline and endline values for a number of indicators. The introductory text indicates that offerors “should establish baselines and realistic, specific annual targets.” In addition the introductory text indicates that “any End of Project targets that are included in the template below reflect

USAID minimum proposed performance targets.” This Table, while basically logical, has some apparent inconsistencies. For example, for the indicator “% change in gross revenue in the Jordan water sector” has an end-line of 15% increase in gross revenue.

If different officers have different baselines, but the same end-line, then different Tables from different offerors will not be comparable. Another question arises for that indicator. Gross revenues of which organizations should be included? For example, are revenues of private water tanker vendors to be counted in the baseline and end-line?

RESPONSE: Refer to the Solicitation Section J - Attachment 10: Performance Target

Monitoring Plan Template, Fourth and Fifth Paragraphs.

The 15 percent increase in gross revenue refers to Jordan’s utilities – for clarity the

Offeror can explain any assumptions and the methodology proposed to be used to achieve the 15 percent target.

QUESTION 25: SOL Section Attachment 10, paragraph 1, page 2: Similar questions arise for other end-line values. For the indicator “% change in water sold by utilities”, the end-line is 4%.

Is that intended to be a 4% decrease in water sold? Is this an aggregate figure for all utilities? Is this total water sold or water sold per customer? Are independent water

12 | P a g e supply systems in refugee camps to be counted?

RESPONSE: This is an aggregate figure to INCREASE the water sold through the public utilities not per customer and not for independent water supply systems.

Requiring people to pay for water is important to promote conservation. The idea is that with reductions in non-revenue water, more water will be sold that was previously lost in the system, through theft, and/or billing problems.

QUESTION 26: SOL Section Attachment 10, paragraph 1, page 2: Does the indicator “Operating cost recovery weighted average” refer only to Zarqa, WAJ and Miyahuna? Also, are the percentage changes to be proportional or absolute changes? In other words, if Zarqa has a baseline of 75% operating cost recovery, is the target 90% operating cost recovery, or

75% plus 15% of 75% = 86.25% operating cost recovery.

RESPONSE: Refer to Attachment 9, Statement of Objectives, IR 4: Water Supply and Resources

Protected, Page number 5. The percentages are a change in the absolute number

(not a percentage) of operating cost recovery for each individual water utilities

(Zarqa, WAJ, JVA, and Miyahuna).

QUESTION 27: SOL Section Attachment 10, paragraph 1, page 2: Are offerors allowed to express

NRW in indicator forms other than percentages? Percentages measures of NRW are highly discouraged by the International Water Association, as being misleading due to variation in water consumption. For example the stipulated 4% decrease (?) in water sold will impact the percentage NRW in a way that does not actually measure the volume of

NRW. Can offerors use other internationally recognized indicators – such as Liters /

Connection / day, which are in use in Jordan?

RESPONSE: ‐ Refer to Attachment 9, Statement of Objectives, IR 4: Water Supply and Resources Protected, Page number 5, ‐ and Refer to Attachment 10: Performance Monitoring Plan Template, Third Paragraph:

“ .. as this solicitation is based on a Statement of Objectives, the Offerors may determine that some or many of the indicators are not relevant to their measurement of success and/or their approach. Therefore, the Offerors are free to eliminate indicators that are not relevant for the success of the chosen approach. Offerors are

13 | P a g e also free to add quantitative indicators and/or milestones to this PMTP that they believe are important for their success.”

QUESTION 28: SOL Section: Attachment 10 (PTMP Template) - Page Number: 4

Relevant RFP Language: “# of best practices systems developed, improved, or being implemented to increase transparency and accountability in water sector governance…End of project target: Minimum 10 related to Zarqa”

Question: The indicator appears to relate to the sector as a whole, but the end of project target is specific to Zarqa. Are we correct that the end of project target was intended to be a minimum of 10 across any of the water sector institutions?

RESPONSE: No, the minimum of 10 is for Zarqa alone as this is the focus area; the Offeror’s roll out approach will determine any targets established for areas outside of Zarqa.

QUESTION 29: Section F.7, Page 20, AMEP. The last sentence indicates that USAID/Jordan’s

Program Office will make available monitoring and evaluation templates for the

AMEP. Attachment 10 provides the PTMP. Please verify if that is the document referred to on page 20, or if there are other templates that USAID/ Jordan can provide prior to submission.

RESPONSE: The Performance Target Monitoring Plan (PTMP) is not the Activity M&E Plan

(AMEP); these are two separate documents, although the information contained in the PTMP will likely be used to develop the AMEP.

At this time, the Program Office template for the AMEP referenced in Section F.7 is not available nor is required at the proposal phase. The Offeror, however, must prepare its Draft Summary AMEP in accordance with the instructions set forth in

L.8.3(d).

QUESTION 30: Attachment 10, PTMP, General Inquiry. This assignment appears heavily reliant upon proposed performance indicators. Can more guidance be provided regarding any anticipated allocations to M&E activities? Are activities to assess impact anticipated to be included in the proposed assignment? (or funded separately to support the presumed independent nature?)

14 | P a g e

RESPONSE: Costs to support monitoring the Activity should be budgeted by the Offeror and are not anticipated to be funded separately.

QUESTION 31: Can USAID clarify under which Factor/Sub-Factor the Offeror’s AMEP will be evaluated?

RESPONSE: The AMEP will be evaluated against the criteria indicated in Section M.2.1 –

Factor 1: Technical Approach.

Instructions regarding the AMEP are set forth in Section L.8.3(c)&(d).

QUESTION 32: Should copies of the Past Performance Questionnaires (referenced on page 118, Section L.8.6.4) be included in the Past Performance annex along with the Past Performance Matrix (referenced on page 117, Section L.8.6.1) or only sent to the references?

RESPONSE: The past performance questionnaires should be completed by the appropriate persons and submitted directly to USAID, as set forth in Attachment No. 3.

QUESTION 33: Please confirm that the projects offerors include in the Past Performance Matrix as

Annex 7 to the Technical Proposal (delineated on page 109, before L.8.1) are to be the same projects included as Past Performance Questionnaires, using Attachment 3.

RESPONSE: The Past performance Matrix may include, but is not limited, to those projects for which Past performance Questionnaires are submitted.

QUESTION 34: Section L.8.6.3(b)(2), Page 117/118, Past Performance. This section refers to “the narrative summary in (A)”. Please confirm this refers to L.8.6.3(b)(1), which requires the Offeror is to provide a narrative summary of its organization's use of small business concerns over the past three years

RESPONSE: Section L.8.b.3(b)(2) requesting the supplement to the narrative summary in (A) references the narrative described in L.8.3(b)(1).

QUESTION 35: Attachment 9, General Inquiry. Will the offeror, if awarded this contract, have access to relevant GOJ (and particularly MWI) Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data related to the water sector?

RESPONSE: Yes, the Contractor will have access to the GIS data located at the MWI, if

15 | P a g e needed.

QUESTION 36: Can USAID clarify the criteria in which the Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated in Section F “Deliveries or Performance”, as stated in Section M.2 (page 126)?

RESPONSE: Section F.7(m) sets forth the Summary of Contract Deliverables, which will be determined based on the successful Offeror’s technical approach and proposed deliverables set forth in the Performance Work Statement. As set forth in Section L.8.3(b), the PWS will include (3) “the proposed deliverables associated with each Component and Supplemental Activities...”.

QUESTION 37: Reference: SOL Section F, paragraph 8, page 24 and attachment 7. Section F.8 references the Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) number 14-133 that has been approved for this program. Can USAID please provide a copy of the IEE?

RESPONSE: USAID will not provide the IEE as part of the solicitation. The IEE is a categorical exclusion for a technical assistance program as indicated in Section F.8 of the subject solicitation. The IEE will be re-reviewed by USAID when IWSMG is finalized.

QUESTION 38: Reference: SOL Section L, paragraph 8.4, page 115 and 116 Can USAID kindly confirm that key personnel should be named in the technical proposal, but all other personal should not be named in the technical personnel?

RESPONSE: Confirmed; only key personnel should be named in the technical proposal. All other personnel should not be named in the technical proposal.

QUESTION 39: Reference: SOL Section L, paragraph 8.4, page 115 Can USAID confirm that information required for references includes the individual’s name, title, organization, and contact information (telephone and email)?

RESPONSE: With regard to providing references for the Key Personnel, as set forth in Section

L.8.4(a) - Key Personnel, please provide the reference’s name, title, organization, and contact information (telephone and email).

QUESTION 40: 4. SOL Section General Question: Does USAID / Jordan anticipate conducting oral interviews in Jordan with offerors, as part of the procurement process?

RESPONSE: USAID may conduct interviews of key personnel. Offerors should be prepared to make their two key personnel available for telephone interviews between June 11

16 | P a g e and June 17. If USAID decides to hold such interviews, USAID is targeting June

11 and/or June 15. All interviews will be conducted via telephone.

QUESTION 41: SOL Section: L.8.4.b - Page Number: 115-116

Relevant RFP Language: “Discuss the short-term and long-term technical positions proposed and the expertise, experience, and other capabilities of personnel identified or expected to be used to implement the PWS…The Offeror must not include the names of potential candidates, CVs or resumes of such Significant Personnel in the technical proposal.”

Question: In discussing the “the expertise, experience, and other capabilities of personnel identified or expected to be used to implement the PWS,” Offerors would need to identify by name the relevant individuals who would be committed and available for the winning bidder. To demonstrate the right mix of personnel and their value to

IWSMG implementation, are we correct that Offerors are allowed to include names and qualifications of non-key, Significant Personnel in the Staffing Plan portion of the main body of the technical proposal and in the Annex 6: Staffing Matrix?

RESPONSE: As set forth in Section L.8.4. only the key personnel should be named. With regards to Significant Personnel, the offeror must not include the names of potential candidates. Rather, the Offeror should follow the instructions set forth in Section

L.8.4(b). The Staffing Matrix should identify: (1) position title; (2) describe the position’s role within the organization and how relevant skills will contribute to the performance of the PWS; (3) provide the percentage of time the position will work on this contract (if applicable); and (4) describe the primary responsibilities of each position. The Offeror may discuss expertise, experience and other personnel of proposed positions without specifically identifying the name of the potential candidate for each position.

QUESTION 42: Section F.4, Page 16, Authorized Work Week. The RFP says "The Contractor is authorized up to a 5 day workweek for long-term staff in the field and 6 day workweek for short-term advisors in the field with no premium pay.". On page 38 the RFP says

"Any six-day workweek proposed for STTAs requires prior written approval by the

Contracting Officer. A six-day work week is authorized for international short-term technical assistance, with no premium pay." Can you please confirm that a six day

17 | P a g e work week is authorized just for international STTA, and not all STTA?

RESPONSE: Section F.4 (page 16) is hereby amended as follows:

“F.4 AUTHORIZED WORK WEEK

The Contractor is authorized up to a 5 day workweek for long-term staff and local short term advisors in the field, and 6 day workweek for international short-term advisors in the field with no premium pay. This contract does not allow work in excess of 5 days per week for local staff and local short term advisors without prior written approval by USAID’s Contracting Office and no overtime is authorized.”

Based on the foregoing, international STTA is authorized for a six day work (with no premium pay); no prior written approval is required. Local STTA, on the other hand, must obtain Contracting Officer approval in order to work in excess of a five day workweek.

QUESTION 43: Can USAID clarify whether Section H.6.(l)(3) (p. 38) is Contracting Officer approval for a 6-day work week for international STTA?

RESPONSE: See Response to Question 42.

QUESTION 44: Section F.4, Page 16, Authorized Work Week. The RFP says "The Contractor is authorized up to a 5 day workweek for long-term staff in the field and 6 day workweek for short-term advisors in the field with no premium pay.". On page 38 the RFP says

"Any six-day workweek proposed for STTAs requires prior written approval by the

Contracting Officer. A six-day work week is authorized for international short-term technical assistance, with no premium pay." Can you please confirm that that a six day work week is authorized just for international STTA, and not all STTA?

RESPONSE: See Response to Question 42.

QUESTION 45: Would USAID verify that the Local Compensation Plan, dated December 29, 2013

(Attachment no. 8) is the latest version and should be used for this solicitation?

RESPONSE: Yes, the Local Compensation Plan, dated December 29, 2013 - Attachment no. 8 of the solicitation, is the most current version.

18 | P a g e

QUESTION 46: Reference: SOL Section H, paragraph 6, page 35 Section H.6(g) and H.6(i) set a salary ceiling for CCN staff at the maximum salary of the highest senior FSN position authorized under the U.S. Embassy Compensation Plan. This restriction contradicts

AIDAR 752.7007, incorporated by reference in Section H 5(a), which states that direct compensation of the contractor’s personnel will be in accordance with the contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices. Can USAID please confirm that offeror’s should comply with AIDAR 752.7007 and follow their established policies, procedures, and practices for establishing individual salaries and administering salary increases?

RESPONSE: AIDAR 722.170(b) states that compensation paid to TCN/CCN contractor employees may not, without a waiver from the Mission Director, “exceed the prevailing compensation paid to personnel performing comparable work in the cooperating country as determined by the USAID Mission.”

Any TCN and CCN salaries that exceed the prevailing compensation paid to personnel performing comparable work in the cooperating country will require

USAID approval as detailed in Section H.7. The salaries for TCNs and CCNs that exceed the Local Compensation Plan are deemed approved if they are requested in the cost proposal and accepted during negotiations.

QUESTION 47: Reference: SOL Section H paragraph 6, page 36 Section H.6(h) states that annual salary increases for international and CCN staff shall not exceed 5 percent. This limitation of 5 percent seems to conflict with AIDAR 752.7007, incorporated in H.5(a) of the contract, which states, “direct compensation of the Contractor’s personnel will be in accordance with the Contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices.” Would USAID consider changing the percentage to “TBD” and incorporating a rate that is consistent with the contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices upon award?

RESPONSE: As set forth in Section H.6(h), pursuant to USAID/Jordan policy regarding salary increases on awards, annual salary increase may not exceed 5% applied to an employee pool. Any salary increases exceeding the limitations set forth in the

H.6(h) will require contracting officer approval.

QUESTION 48: Section H.7, Page 36, Employment of Third Country Nationals, letter “d.” On the one hand, says that TCN and CCN salaries are deemed approved if they are included into the final proposal revision. Page 38, H.7 (1) says, on the other hand, that they are

19 | P a g e

"unallowable" unless there is a CO written determination. Does inclusion into the final proposal revision constitute a CO written determination? Can you please clarify?

RESPONSE: See Response to Question 46.

QUESTION 49: Section H.7, Page 36, Employment of Third Country Nationals, letter “d.” Where it says that any initial starting salaries included in the final proposal revision and accepted during negotiations are deemed approved, does this approval include salaries in currencies other than the local currency for TCN's and CCN's?

RESPONSE: TCN and CCN employees must be paid in the local currency unless USAID approval is obtained. Such request for this payment method may be included in the proposal and deemed approved if accepted during negotiations.

QUESTION 50: Section H.7, Employment of Third Country Nationals, Page 38. H.7 says that maximum compensation without Contracting Officer approval is per "Mission Local

Compensation Plan". On pages 36 and 37 of the solicitation, the maximum is noted as per the "US Embassy Compensation Plan”, which will be provided after contract award.

Are these Plans one in the same, and the same thing as "Local Compensation Plan" noted at Attachment No. 8 on page 84?

RESPONSE: The "Mission Local Compensation Plan" and the US Embassy Compensation

Plan” are the same, as is provided as Attachment No. 8 on page 84 of the RFP.

QUESTION 51: In pages 120 & 122, Section L.8, the description of Salaries and Wages includes the cost of short-term personnel; however, the description of Consultants includes that the costs of employees of the Offeror (In-House STTA) and those that are contracts. Can USAID please clarify where short-term labor (STTA) should be budgeted?

RESPONSE: As set forth in Section L.8 (Page 122), FAR 31.205-33 provides that “consultants” provide services that are rendered by persons who are members of a particular profession or possess a special skill and who are not officers or employees of the

Contractor. Therefore, STTA that are employees of the Contractor should be budgeted under “Salary and Wages” and STTA who are not offices or employees of the Contractor should be budgeted under “Consultants.”

20 | P a g e

For purposes of clarification, the section entitled “Consultants” on page 122 is amended to delete the following sentence: “Separate Short Term Technical

Consultants (STTA) cost into two categories: those which are employees of the

Offeror (In-House STTA), and those that are contracted.”

QUESTION 52: Section L.8.(2)(4), Part 4, Page 121, Biographical Data Sheets. Are Biographical

Data Sheets/Attachment 2 required for all Significant Personnel identified in the Offeror’s Technical Proposal in the staffing matrix under Section L.8.4., Key Personnel and Staffing?

RESPONSE: Bio data sheets are required for all Key Personnel only. The Offeror must provide documentation in support of how it determined the proposed salary, which may include (but is not required) the bio-data sheet for the contemplated candidate for the position. The Offeror must not however, include the names of the proposed candidates within the technical proposal.

QUESTION 53: Can USAID please clarify whether the Budget Narrative and Biographical Data

Sheets should be included in Part 2, or in Parts 3 and 4 respectively (Pages 119 – 123, Section L.8, Parts 2 – 4)?

RESPONSE: Biographical Data Sheets are only required for Key Personnel and must be set forth in Part 4 of the Cost Proposal.

An Offeror may determine, but is not required, to include bio-data sheets for potential candidates as supporting documentation of its salary rate determination. For ease of reference, the Offeror may include such bio-data sheets in Part 4 as Tab “Part 4-B: Other Bio-Data Sheets.”

QUESTION 54: Can USAID please clarify whether the Price Summary, Base Program- Cost Element

Budget and/or Supplemental Activities-Cost Element Budget tables from Section L.8 should be included in this section for each sub-offeror (Pages 124 – 125, Section L.8, Part 10)? Would USAID like this information to be presented as a separate section, or as a part of the budget in Part 2?

RESPONSE: Please see the instructions in Section L.8 - Part 2 - Proposed Costs/Prices. Yes, the proposed costs should be provided to include each major sub-offeror in the level of details described below (use separate sections as necessary to articulate your response):

21 | P a g e

“Offerors must ensure that the cost proposal is consistent with the technical approach in all respects. This part of the Cost Proposal should include the following information: (1) Detailed budgets in MS Excel spreadsheet format with all formulas showing and no hidden cells; (2) Budget Narrative; and (3)

Supporting Documents that support the calculation of costs included in the spreadsheets.

(a) The Cost Proposal must be provided in two formats: (a) a summary budget and (b) detailed activity budget, broken out by major cost elements, for the contract period of five (5) years, from date of award for

(1) Base Program and (2) Supplemental Activities.

This is to include a complete breakdown of the cost elements and those costs associated with each proposed subcontract. Supporting information is to be provided in sufficient detail to allow a complete analysis of each line item cost. Offerors must provide this information through the use of detailed spreadsheets, budget narratives and footnotes…”

QUESTION 55: Section B.4, Page 10, Budget and Ceiling Price. During performance, will the

Contractor be able to move funding between the total of Direct Cost and the total of

Indirect Cost on its own or will this require prior Government approval? If so, by whom?

RESPONSE: Approvals for such changes must be requested and obtained from the

Contracting Officer.

QUESTION 56: Section B.8, Page 11, Fixed Fee Schedule. Please advise if letter “a” should start with "The Government..." instead of "The Contractor...."

RESPONSE: Yes, Section B.8(a) should read: “ The Government shall pay the

Contractor…..”. The section is amended accordingly.

QUESTION 57: SOL Section: B.7 - Page Number: 11

Relevant RFP Language: “Therefore, the cancellation ceiling for each cancellation

22 | P a g e date is per the below:”

Question: Should Offerors propose cancellation ceilings per Section B.7, or will those be negotiated at contract award?

RESPONSE: These rates will be negotiated within 90 calendar days of contract award as stated in Section B.7 on page 11 of the solicitation.

QUESTION 58: FAR 52.219-9 Small Business Contracting Plan. The solicitation does not call for a

Subcontracting Plan and submission of SF-294 and SF-295. Please advise if Offeror needs to submit a plan in accordance with this FAR clause or if this FAR clause will be deleted.

RESPONSE: No, the solicitation does not call for a Subcontracting Plan.

QUESTION 59: Section H.42, Page 58, Consent To Subcontract. Is Consent to subcontract still required during performance even when the Contractor has an Approved Purchasing

System as defined in FAR 52.244-2?

RESPONSE: Yes, unless the sub contract is preapproved and listed in the contract, the contractor must request Contracting Officer consent and submit the information required by the aforementioned clause for any subcontracts requiring consent.

QUESTION 60: We kindly request clarification regarding the inclusion of the GLASS Requisition table in Section G.10 Accounting and Appropriation Data (p. 33) in the solicitation

RESPONSE: The information in G.10 Accounting and Appropriation Data is for internal use only.

QUESTION 61: Section B.5 states, “Indirect costs shall not be allowed for local organizations. All costs for local organizations shall be budgeted and billed as direct costs.” If local organizations have previously contracted with USAID using approved audited indirect rates or a NICRA, can local organizations propose indirect costs and follow the instructions under Section L.8.3 “if approved rates have not been previously

23 | P a g e established with the Government, a breakdown of bases, pools, method of determining the rates and description of costs”?

RESPONSE: Yes, Offerors may follow the instructions provided in Section L.8.3 regarding calculation of indirect costs for local organizations.

QUESTION 62: 1. Reference: SOL Section B, paragraph 5, page 10 The RFP states, “Indirect costs shall not be allowed for local organizations. All costs for local organizations shall be budgeted and billed as direct costs.” We believe Cost-

Plus-Fixed Fee (CPFF) or Time and Materials (T&M) type subcontracts with local organizations represent value to the government when the following conditions are met:

A local organization can provide evidence that it has an accounting system capable of administering a CPFF or T&M type subcontract A local organization is committed to undergoing annual audits of their indirect cost rates in accordance with the cost principles of FAR Part 31 A local organization has established indirect cost rates and the use of indirect cost rates is an integral part of their cost accounting standards

With strong prime contractor oversight and the requirement for local organizations to undergo annual audits in accordance with the cost principles of

FAR Part 31, these contracting mechanisms serve as a tool to build the capacity of local organizations. Furthermore, managing direct cost allocation subcontracts typically results in higher financial and administrative burden for prime contractors and reduces overall cost control due to monthly costs varying significantly depending on the services being provided by the subcontractor.

Indirect cost rate ceilings (under CPFF subcontracts) and fixed multipliers

(under T&M subcontracts) reduce the government’s cost risk of potential indirect cost rate increases and allow for a higher level of cost control and financial and administrative oversight by the prime contractor.

In consideration of the above, would USAID grant offerors the flexibility to propose CPFF and T&M type subcontracts with local organizations?

24 | P a g e

RESPONSE: This may be considered on case by case basis by the Contracting Officer.

QUESTION 63: Can USAID clarify the process for withholding 10-25% of the fee based on past performance (page 11, B.8.(a)? Is this based on the specific past performance references used as part of the proposal, or a broader evaluation of past performance?

RESPONSE: The payment of fee shall be made, provided that the reserve does not exceed

15% of the total fixed fee or $100,000, whichever is less, in accordance with

FAR 52.216-8. The Contracting Officer’s determination to release up to 90% of the fee withholds is based on a broader evaluation of past performance related to the submission and settlement of final indirect cost rate proposals, rather than the past performance references used as part of the proposal.

QUESTION 64: Would USAID provide a standard exchange rate to be used for the Cost proposal to ensure parity between Offerors.

RESPONSE: The standard exchange rate that may be used for cost proposal purposes is

$1=JOD.708.

QUESTION 65: Can USAID confirm whether any USG-equipment from closing projects will be available to be transferred or whether the Offeror should budget for the purchase of new equipment

RESPONSE: Although it is possible that USAID will transfer equipment to the project, for budget purposes, the Offeror should assume new equipment will be purchased.

QUESTION 66: Section H.18, Page 43, Project Vehicles. Presumably, project vehicles are needed and can be either leased or purchased under this contract; however, often time USAID has

US Government owned vehicles that could be transferred from closing projects to this one. Is there excess inventory by which USAID could provide equipment or vehicles to this contract? If so, what in and in what amount?

RESPONSE: Although it is possible that USAID will transfer equipment to the project, for budget purposes, each Offeror should assume new equipment and vehicles will be purchased.

25 | P a g e

QUESTION 67: Can USAID please confirm that offerors should include an analysis in the cost proposal that it is more advantageous to purchase than lease for only high value equipment and supplies items (Page 122, Section L.8.3)?

RESPONSE: Confirmed; See Section L.8.3, Instructions for the preparation of Cost Proposal, subsection (3), Equipment and Supplies.